How would you change Star Wars?

[ruxCYtable]

that's not actually what happens to a body in space though

https://www.cnet.com/news/what-happens-to-the-unprotected-human-body-in-space/

I mean, it was still a bit unrealistic and i wasnt a huge fan of the scene, but is it that over the top for what we know jedi can do? (****, some of the stuff that was in the EU back in the day was way more than this)

OK, good article. But I still hated the scene!

 

[Frak]

I think harping on the effects is a bit like harping on old video games because of the graphics. Destiny 2 looks a lot better than, say, Team Fortress 2, the original Halo (even with the graphics update), and even the original DOOM, but the latter three are way more fun to play than 95% of anything new coming out that looks better to a modern eye.

I have never heard a young child complain about the quality of effects in something, though. That seems to be something that comes with teenage cynicism. Young children have very plastic imaginations. I showed my cousin's son Genesis of the Daleks (a Doctor Who serial from 1975) and he loved it. He did not see the cardboard sets and terrible effects.

It comes down to the content of the story, the characters, and the emotion to me, and with those, the Original Trilogy is shockingly modern and not dated at all. The way things are shot and effects are used matters, too. The original Godzilla was obviously a guy in a suit stomping on a paper model of Tokyo, but they work around that by shooting the creature in shadows and from low angles. They frame it in a way that makes you look past their weaknesses. The score to the first two, as well, are still two SW of the greatest in the history of cinema. My wife even commented, watching it with me for the first time, that the score completely sells it.

Somebody brought up Forbidden Planet earlier, and it is the same idea there -- it is imaginative and thematically rich, which means it is still easy to watch even nowadays. The Wrath of Khan has some cheesy effects, but its story and performances get better each and every time that I watch it. I would way rather watch it again compared to any more J.J. Binks crap.

Being "dated" is just not about effects, though. Prevailing styles of cinematography and acting change, too. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of my all-time favorites, but that, "Gee whiz, that is a real humdinger!" voice and tone of a lot of Old Hollywood movies is something you just have to look past nowadays. Scenes lasted longer and films themselves were generally shorter. You have to adjust for those contexts when watching them.

That is not even mentioning the Breakfast and Tiffany's and Gone with the Wind types that are, well, #problematic, to say the absolute least.

I'd agree with that. Bought a knockoff 8 bit Nintendo at a mall kiosk with 500 preinstalled games for $60. My 8 year old thinks it is the coolest thing ever. And he has a brand new Switch. Just got done beating Contra 1 and 2. Never once has he complained about graphics.

 

[FerShizzle]

R rated

 

[RoseClone]

I don't like Science Fiction so I would make it less Science Fictionish.

 

[CloneFan4]

VERY curious as to how you would accomplish that. Unless you are really Rian Johnson's dad.

I would have to become one of the things i hate the most: a **** blocker

 

[coolerifyoudid]

The prequels weren't a bad premise. There was a ridiculous amount of excitement for them when they initially came out. There was just way too much CGI, bad dialogue and bad acting.

I feel like modified plots and some re-writes would have made that series a success. Had the prequels been done well, the franchise could have been moving in a different direction right now.

The original series was fine. It was campy at times, but so was nearly every action movie made after it in the 80's.

The new movies are here to appease the older generation, but mainly to attract the next generation of fans. IMO, they are basically re-doing the original trilogy and slowly replacing the established characters with younger ones. My daughter loves the original series, but relates more with Rey. Disney knows how to target the audience that is going to spend the most money in the future.

 

[dirtyninety]

I would re-cast Mark Hammill......maybe put a young Peter Frampton in there or something. A young Jeremy Irons or Michael York. Leif Garrett would have made a much better Luke Skywalker.
Hammil is uber-abrasive....he killed the last installment. Did you see him at the Oscars? Schmuck. Dude has been interpreting Star War's success as partially his own device since, say, 1980.
Why would you cast him as the British scientist in Kingsmen? seriously? That says a lot about the warped agent alignments in that industry. It's been all downhill since Corvette Summer.

 

[arobb]

Should have kept IV, V, and VI original without the cheesy effects added to the re-releases. The only prequel should have been Rogue One. Shitcan everything else.

 

[GTO]

I don't like Science Fiction so I would make it less Science Fictionish.

Soooo..... Earth Wars?

 

[arobb]

I've not seen Alien... To this day.

Actually, both Alien and Aliens hold up pretty well. Well ahead of their time when they were released. Well worth watching.

 

[CyCloned]

lose Jar Jar, or at least make him and the rest of his tribe not look like idiots. The Ewoks were awful. A warrior class of teddy bears, yikes. Young Anakin was super annoying, and the teen age one was even worse. Not sure how an order as strict as the Jedi would let someone that clearly unstable in.

 

[CyCloned]

Not just talking the effects. The script and cinematography haven't aged awesomely. All three are pretty campy.

I tend to agree. but the cinematography for most Sci-fi movies tend to suffer the most from age, as they tend to use a lot of special effects that are not all that special, even after a decade. The ones that age the best are the ones that limited the special effects.

 

[VeloClone]

Prequels: start over from scratch.
IV: don't touch this
V: don't touch this, either
VI: start over from scratch. So many fans think Star Killer Base is a re-hash of the Death Star, then why no objections to a true re-hash of the Death Star? I liked George Lucas's original idea to have Lea NOT be Luke's sister, and to set up the third trilogy to be about finding Luke's true sister. Have VI take place on Kashyyk (Chewbacka's home world) which is being made into a super weapon, kind of like the Star Killer Base idea.

Probably something bigger fans than me can confirm or refute but I heard that originally when Lucas laid out the overall storyline RotJ was supposed to introduce the Wookies and their homeland but that ended up having to be scrapped when he changed Han's copilot to a wookie. Thus the abominations known as ewoks were born.

 

[MeanDean]

Actually, both Alien and Aliens hold up pretty well. Well ahead of their time when they were released. Well worth watching.

Probably should look at them again. While I love Sci-Fi, I avoid the horror genre like the plague. I just remember the big scene shown (maybe it was in the preview?) of the critter coming out of Sigourney Weaver's body and thought, "Not for me."

 

[dafarmer]

The obvious answer is buy back the rights from Disney.

 

[CycloneVet]

I think harping on the effects is a bit like harping on old video games because of the graphics. Destiny 2 looks a lot better than, say, Team Fortress 2, the original Halo (even with the graphics update), and even the original DOOM, but the latter three are way more fun to play than 95% of anything new coming out that looks better to a modern eye.

I have never heard a young child complain about the quality of effects in something, though. That seems to be something that comes with teenage cynicism. Young children have very plastic imaginations. I showed my cousin's son Genesis of the Daleks (a Doctor Who serial from 1975) and he loved it. He did not see the cardboard sets and terrible effects.

It comes down to the content of the story, the characters, and the emotion to me, and with those, the Original Trilogy is shockingly modern and not dated at all. The way things are shot and effects are used matters, too. The original Godzilla was obviously a guy in a suit stomping on a paper model of Tokyo, but they work around that by shooting the creature in shadows and from low angles. They frame it in a way that makes you look past their weaknesses. The score to the first two, as well, are still two SW of the greatest in the history of cinema. My wife even commented, watching it with me for the first time, that the score completely sells it.

Somebody brought up Forbidden Planet earlier, and it is the same idea there -- it is imaginative and thematically rich, which means it is still easy to watch even nowadays. The Wrath of Khan has some cheesy effects, but its story and performances get better each and every time that I watch it. I would way rather watch it again compared to any more J.J. Binks crap.

Being "dated" is just not about effects, though. Prevailing styles of cinematography and acting change, too. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is one of my all-time favorites, but that, "Gee whiz, that is a real humdinger!" voice and tone of a lot of Old Hollywood movies is something you just have to look past nowadays. Scenes lasted longer and films themselves were generally shorter. You have to adjust for those contexts when watching them.

That is not even mentioning the Breakfast and Tiffany's and Gone with the Wind types that are, well, #problematic, to say the absolute least.

The original Japanese version of Godzilla before they made the American version with Raymond Burr is a very good movie.

 

[Gonzo]

Give Chewey a sex scene.

 

[GTO]

Give Chewey a sex scene.

The Revenant 2.

 

[Sigmapolis]

The original Japanese version of Godzilla before they made the American version with Raymond Burr is a very good movie.

I actually like both versions, but in each case, the cheesy effects do not hold back the story, themes, and characters. Yes, it is a B-movie, but they do not treat it like one, and they way they shoot it emphasizes the mystery and nemesis of the monster without making it look silly with the rubber suit effects. The sound design and score are still great. Put it on in a dark room late at night, and it will work just as well now as it did back then.

 

[CycloneVet]

I actually like both versions, but in each case, the cheesy effects do not hold back the story, themes, and characters. Yes, it is a B-movie, but they do not treat it like one, and they way they shoot it emphasizes the mystery and nemesis of the monster without making it look silly with the rubber suit effects. The sound design and score are still great. Put it on in a dark room late at night, and it will work just as well now as it did back then.

I like both too but they are 2 different movies in many ways. Much more anti nuclear rheoric in the Japanese version